Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

As stated by Ueshiba it is the path of peace and thus minds all come up with various translations as to what that means.

It's not a mind journey though, it's a spiritual journey, a self journey, a journey of the heart and a journey of the soul.

Simply put, it's the action of restoring peace.

However, it is a path and it is a circle and the true understanding of the circle is the true understanding of Aikido.

This circle starts with peace and ends with peace. A circle of peace.

Thus enters the condition of enlightenment. Enlightenment here meaning a being in a condition of peace, at one with the universe. When you experience similar to this feeling you are experiencing the feeling of STABLE enlightenment temporarily.

Thus Aikido is to learn how to be in such a condition from which to act and bring the other and the scene back to peace, a shared condition.

Sharing. In yourself you may reach being at peace but can you share it? Can you take the attacker and harmonize and restore both in them and in the scene peace?

Interesting ... interesting. Who decides what peace is? Can peace simply be the absence of conflict? ... because it's conflict that is the heart of the cosmos -> mutually opposing activities manifested in infinite ways. Is there then good conflict and bad conflict? Who would be wise enough to know which is which?

Interesting ... interesting. Who decides what peace is? Can peace simply be the absence of conflict? ... because it's conflict that is the heart of the cosmos -> mutually opposing activities manifested in infinite ways. Is there then good conflict and bad conflict? Who would be wise enough to know which is which?

Peace, I don't know ... love might be a better word.

Hi Jim.
I would say a few things here. First that peace is real and you can experience it, you can experience the feeling of being at peace. It is a matter of soul, hence you may think of any peaceful souls you may have met.

Love is a matter of the heart so we have soul and heart. So to differentiate here we thus can have the feeling of being at peace (soul) and the feeling of being at one with (heart, love)

Thus the heart of the cosmos is not and cannot be conflict. I will add to that the heart of the cosmos is not the center for the center is goodness.

When you mention mutually opposing activities we are venturing into the field of yin and yang. The truth of yin and yang is not actually opposition. There is no against in yin and yang. The wording used in it's description is usually complimentary opposites. Thus not energy or forces which oppose but energies which unify and work together and bring back balance. Take love and peace, heart and soul, as two such for all good energies work together and are complimentary.

So conflict in this sense is brought about by not taking responsibility for such and is a result of such.

Thus you don't remove conflict you put back, take responsibility for goodness, love, kindness etc. and bring back harmony and is this way only does conflict dissolve and disappear.

Consider the activities of expansion and contraction. They are complimentary in the sense that you can't have one without the other, but they are not complimentary in the sense that an expanding force always wants to drive a system to infinity, while a contracting force always wants to drive that same system to zero. The have no 'regard' for each other.

Now, this system (any system, which would include a human life) will cycle between some absolute maximum (say ultimate health for a human) and an absolute minimum (death), and at absolute minimum the two activities will, for a 'moment', disappear, and you may argue that this is peace. I could not disagree with that. But this state, this zero is just temporary, the system will split once again into the two activities ... to cycle again and again and again.

When you can see mutually opposing activities in all things (the universe, the planet, a human life, breathing, your mind) ... then you may achieve some sense of a 'peace of mind' ... a peace that comes from knowing that everything (especially your mind) will always be in a state of flux.

Inherent in most ideologies is this concept of an absolute. The way you define peace, for example, may be interpreted as the absolute of 'peace'. An absolute, that claims that if we can just 'get there', our collective problems are over, because we would all be walking the path of peace . But where is 'there' in terms on an absolute, and where does it lead?

Absolutes always imply a single direction ... without a natural cycling ... entropy ... an inexorable descent from an ordered state to a disordered state. Is this true 'peace?'

If you keenly observe the world, you will observe that all 'systems' are in fact the results of mutually opposing activities. Beginning from some quiet state, a zero state, with no evidence of activity ... pow! ... two activities appear. Call it what you will for what you are observing (expand and contract, separate and rejoin, inhale and exhale, living and dying, etc.) Early on, the expanding activity dominates and we have 'growth'. And inevitably the contracting activity dominates and we have 'decay'. And just a inevitably the activities must disappear once again into a singularity.

So, observe the universe, your life, plant life, animal life, your breathing, your thoughts. You will have to come to the same conclusion. Everything cycles, there is no absolute. So, if this cycling is the universe, how does your concept of peace 'map' into it?

Inherent in most ideologies is this concept of an absolute. The way you define peace, for example, may be interpreted as the absolute of 'peace'. An absolute, that claims that if we can just 'get there', our collective problems are over, because we would all be walking the path of peace . But where is 'there' in terms on an absolute, and where does it lead?

Absolutes always imply a single direction ... without a natural cycling ... entropy ... an inexorable descent from an ordered state to a disordered state. Is this true 'peace?'

If you keenly observe the world, you will observe that all 'systems' are in fact the results of mutually opposing activities. Beginning from some quiet state, a zero state, with no evidence of activity ... pow! ... two activities appear. Call it what you will for what you are observing (expand and contract, separate and rejoin, inhale and exhale, living and dying, etc.) Early on, the expanding activity dominates and we have 'growth'. And inevitably the contracting activity dominates and we have 'decay'. And just a inevitably the activities must disappear once again into a singularity.

So, observe the universe, your life, plant life, animal life, your breathing, your thoughts. You will have to come to the same conclusion. Everything cycles, there is no absolute. So, if this cycling is the universe, how does your concept of peace 'map' into it?

O.K. Thanks for the clarification.

I'll start with 'absolute'. Seen as implying single direction....without natural cycling...may be how many look at it but it's false. Everything in the universe goes through a cycle.

If you look at the enlightened view of the physical universe it is seen that it is perfect and thus absolute. Yet in this perfect state everything follows the universal cycles....within this perfection.

So absolute thus is perfect. The truths of the universe are perfect, each and every one of them. The way they harmonize and work together are perfect, the harmony. Even in the field of physics these physical truths can only be located and worked with, harmonized with, understood, and things built and made according to.

The path of peace is thus a matter of you going through a cycle of growth in spiritual understanding for what is enlightenment but a point where all those understandings (not data) come together as one perfect understanding.

So in this spiritual cycle there are only two directions, two choices, and you must choose one of them. To increase, to grow, to follow the path to freedom or to get less and less aware and succumb and be merely a physical thing trapped in image and physical logic and thus only aware of physical things and mystery, led by an ego that says it's so intelligent and yet leads only to chaos. Thus unawareness and ego follow the path of chaos while true self follows the path of peace.

So spiritually on the disciplined path of peace the direction is one way, true expansion,

We all bring our own context to things. My personal context, the one in which I'm reading this thread, is one that is presenting some challenges to the definitions or descriptions of "peace" that I'm reading here. I've been reading Dancing in the Glory of Monsters, a background and history of the recent Congo wars. And so my thought is: it's all well and good to talk about how peace, and the pursuit of peace, is a matter of a spiritual discipline, or of getting one's head right, or whatever...but what does that have to do with the experience of the people who lived through (or didn't live through) the events of that book? Is this "peace" something reserved for those privileged to not live in a war zone?

If the word "peace" has any meaning and any relevance, surely it must include the experiences of those people.

I would say in answer that throughout history, especially when looked at as the history through wars then it is a matter of do we as human beings actually learn the lessons presented by such.

So looked at in terms of cycles then we can see the rise and fall of empires etc. and the pain and suffering brought about as a result along with the other factors of greed and selfishness and on and on. So we see the cycle of the state of awareness we are as a race in.

Thus I say that level, that state of awareness leads to believing the actions we do and way we live and things we follow are less than good and are in fact destructive of ourselves eventually.

So we are, with all our technological advancement, following a path of chaos.

Thus as all past enlightened people have realized the way through, the way out, the way to better for all, is a path of peace but only can be brought into being through first being in a condition of such within ourselves and thus humanity speaking, as a more enlightened humanity.

War zones bring this truth home to those in them. War zones even do attract some who want to bring it about too. Many miracles happen even in such zones. It is not the war zones one should think of sometimes but the zones without war for in those zones instead of promoting a better way for all, a chance for learning about the path of peace, a chance to become more aware, more loving, more kind, more at peace, more all inclusive and responsible. Instead we get more selfish and more superior feeling and more insular and more us and them (devicive) and deviant and more into 'power' and domination and thus on the path of chaos and actually causing those wars to come about.

Thus as all past enlightened people have realized the way through, the way out, the way to better for all, is a path of peace but only can be brought into being through first being in a condition of such within ourselves and thus humanity speaking, as a more enlightened humanity.

What does "enlightenment" have to do with failed states?

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

War zones bring this truth home to those in them. War zones even do attract some who want to bring it about too. Many miracles happen even in such zones. It is not the war zones one should think of sometimes but the zones without war

And what "zones without war" are these? And how are they created? Are you saying that war comes only to the "unenlightened", and that all people have to do to prevent a war is be "enlightened"? Sounds good on paper (well, sort of), but it avoids a central truth: that you don't have to want war to be at war. Regardless of the state of your soul, the war will come to you. Millions of people died in the Congo. Do you think they died because they were warlike or unenlightened?

And what "zones without war" are these? And how are they created? Are you saying that war comes only to the "unenlightened", and that all people have to do to prevent a war is be "enlightened"? Sounds good on paper (well, sort of), but it avoids a central truth: that you don't have to want war to be at war. Regardless of the state of your soul, the war will come to you. Millions of people died in the Congo. Do you think they died because they were warlike or unenlightened?

Unenlightened equals ignorant. Ignorance causes failure and war and chaos.

A zone, an area without war at the moment.

We are all interconnected and thus brothers and sisters as one people. War is caused by ignorance and thus can spring up in various places at various times and and so yes, not enough enlightened people. Conversely thus too much ignorance seen as right. Thus we suffer.

As long as we believe 'regardless of soul or heart or spirit' then we fail to take responsibility for the cause. Thus, oh yes, it will come to us some day. The result of our own cause.

We are all interconnected and thus brothers and sisters as one people. War is caused by ignorance and thus can spring up in various places at various times and and so yes, not enough enlightened people. Conversely thus too much ignorance seen as right. Thus we suffer.

As long as we believe 'regardless of soul or heart or spirit' then we fail to take responsibility for the cause. Thus, oh yes, it will come to us some day. The result of our own cause..

This is simplistic. If you want to pursue peace through cultivating your own spirit, go for it -- that's one piece of the puzzle. But it is only one piece of the puzzle. It may be the only one you choose to pursue, but I do wish you'd acknowledge the undeniable fact that your piece alone is not the solution.

This is simplistic. If you want to pursue peace through cultivating your own spirit, go for it -- that's one piece of the puzzle. But it is only one piece of the puzzle. It may be the only one you choose to pursue, but I do wish you'd acknowledge the undeniable fact that your piece alone is not the solution.

Thank you.
I do indeed communicate such things in a more receivable and understandable manner as is my want. Making things more simple in their essence is good as far as I am concerned rather than using long high faluted words and terminologies.

My view as one piece of the puzzle? Well I am giving and sharing my view yes and do believe it can help solve a few puzzles for some.

Truth alone can solve the puzzles and it is not a piece of the puzzle but is needed by those who are puzzled. Thus it is not 'my truth' and not my 'piece'.

It is however my communication and I have nothing therefore to deny.

I do believe the search and path of more and more understanding of the truth is the way and thus the only way yes. Thus I do believe that is the only solution yes. Fortunately it is not my piece alone.

Well, I mean that we can view the universe in terms of entropy and enthalpy, but the current view is that entropy will ultimately prevail until everything more or less just stops. We're not experts, so maybe this is a pointless question, but my understanding is that ultimately the universe will not balance itself back out; that it is gradually cooling to an end-state...kind of a superlative state of peace. I was just curious how you see this idea applying.

Well, I mean that we can view the universe in terms of entropy and enthalpy, but the current view is that entropy will ultimately prevail until everything more or less just stops. We're not experts, so maybe this is a pointless question, but my understanding is that ultimately the universe will not balance itself back out; that it is gradually cooling to an end-state...kind of a superlative state of peace. I was just curious how you see this idea applying.

'They' call it infared death ... classically an utter monotonous uniformity on a cosmic scale. Quantum effects put a kink in that idea. Thankfully, our current best understanding of the working of the universe is pathetically unimpressive on the grand scale. Transistors, quantum computing and gravitational lensing is one thing but the fate of the universe is quite another.

In either case if ones conception of reality is contradicted by the current 'standard models' generally they are wrong. Just because Einstein went beyond Newton does not free us to fly around the planet free from the bounds of classical gravitational theory.

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Well, I mean that we can view the universe in terms of entropy and enthalpy, but the current view is that entropy will ultimately prevail until everything more or less just stops. We're not experts, so maybe this is a pointless question, but my understanding is that ultimately the universe will not balance itself back out; that it is gradually cooling to an end-state...kind of a superlative state of peace. I was just curious how you see this idea applying.

I go along with O'Sensei. He stated an enlightened view of the universe and that it is perfect and infinite.
Thus it is us who are not so.

That is, there will always be an activity (a sum of forces if you will) that promotes disorder. And just as inevitably there will always be an activity (again, a sum of forces) that promotes harmony ... and the result is, of course, that 'peace' comes and goes, comes and goes, comes and goes. Now, perhaps you are saying that you want to throw yourself in with the sum of forces that promotes harmony, then fine, I could accept that in a heartbeat.

But to see that there is some nirvana of an absolute peace is to deny the reality of the universe. So why is that so bad? Because we then inevitably make this quantum leap into accepting some absolute spiritual side of ourselves, a side that if we can just tap into it will solve all our problems. The fact is, we cycle just like everything in the universe. Observe, observe, observe. You come and go, come and go, I come and go, come and go, the world comes and goes, comes and goes. The only absolute is that everything is in flux.

'They' call it infared death ... classically an utter monotonous uniformity on a cosmic scale. Quantum effects put a kink in that idea. Thankfully, our current best understanding of the working of the universe is pathetically unimpressive on the grand scale. Transistors, quantum computing and gravitational lensing is one thing but the fate of the universe is quite another.

In either case if ones conception of reality is contradicted by the current 'standard models' generally they are wrong. Just because Einstein went beyond Newton does not free us to fly around the planet free from the bounds of classical gravitational theory.

One of these days I might actually have to learn physics instead of the half-formed sound-bite-like concepts I've picked up. Infared death is mildly depressing to me. I like the idea that eventually everything will fall back into itself until it compresses back to another Big Bang state. I probably won't get to see it in this life time, but I'm hoping to be reincarnated as a bending robot not unlike this, so that perhaps I can watch it all unfold.

Quote:

Graham wrote:

I go along with O'Sensei. He stated an enlightened view of the universe and that it is perfect and infinite.
Thus it is us who are not so.

This is my view.

Peace.G.

Regardless of the absolute reality, relative to my imperfect and finite mind, it may as well be. It's pretty big, small, and awesome all at the same time.

Quote:

Jim wrote:

The only absolute is that everything is in flux.

"The restless and infinite movements of nature." It's fascinating to see what little I am able to see.
Cheers folks!
Matt

One more idea for you Matthew. As I talk about and state about the spiritual side I'll put this perspective into it.

Spiritually you can learn to keep and remain in calmness, stillness, peacefulness, loving and with harmony. Now, this includes staying stable as such whilst observing and accepting and understanding the continuous state of flux, of continuous change in the physical universe.

This is Aikido in action from my view. The opponent being that state of flux you as a calm self harmonize with and handle and bring back to a state of peace.

So these spiritual realities don't take you away from physical but rather put you in better communication with and thus happier.

But to see that there is some nirvana of an absolute peace is to deny the reality of the universe. So why is that so bad? Because we then inevitably make this quantum leap into accepting some absolute spiritual side of ourselves, a side that if we can just tap into it will solve all our problems.

...and that, to be blunt, is something that people in privileged positions can sometimes buy into. But when preaching about peace, it seems to me that those of us who have never lived in a war zone, never been the victim of domestic abuse, never been sent off to war and come home with PTSD, should acknowledge first and foremost that we do speak from a position of unearned privilege in which our peace has never withstood these severe challenges. Perhaps this should inspire us to proclaim less and speak more humbly.

When you can be at peace with even such negativity and war and bad situations then you can be useful in speaking about, doing something about and changing things for the better.

When you, Graham, tell me that you've been in such a bad situation, I'll be more inclined to give more weight to your observations about being "at peace with" such situations. Until then, I'll content myself with observing that it's much easier to "be at peace with" a nasty reality (or at least, claim to be) if you don't have to live it.

Peace is more harmony from within, rather than a condition that the rest of the world is in. It's about how you react and respond to your surroundings. I don't think it really matters what is going on around you or what type of background or history you have. It's about accepting the reality of your circumstances and finding a way to harmonize/blend with them. It's admittidly easier to do when your life isn't all that difficult, but the focus should be on how to acheive this state of peace and enlightenment in YOUR particular circumstances, whatever they may be.